Diversity Management and Perspectives towards Diversity - Research Paper Example

? Diversity and Organisations Diversity Management and Perspectives towards Diversity: The case of race and gender inserts his/her Institution’s name Abstract This paper investigates research pertaining to perspectives towards diversity, particularly racial and gender diversity, in organisations. These articles report the results of research that investigates the relationship between diversity and its outcomes which forms the basis for whether or not organisations value diversity. It also sheds light on the shortcomings of diversity management approaches by claiming lack of quantitative results and counter-productive policies resulting in backfiring of such initiatives. Although the articles vary in their approach towards managing diversity, almost all of them cite this as being a complex process that can often prove to be ineffective if not executed correctly. It also opens opportunity for further research specially pertaining to other dimensions of diversity such as age, national origin and disability. Keywords: diversity, gender, racial, diversity management Diversity Management and Perspectives towards Diversity The case of race and gender Diversity is almost always defined in narrow terms, thus, ignoring its all-encompassing nature. It is important to note that there are six dimensions of diversity namely age, disability, gender, race, sexual orientation and national origin (Shore, Chung-Herrera, Dean, Ehrhart, & Jung, 2009). The concept of racial and ethnic stereotyping rests on the fact that human beings make judgments about others on the basis of superficial characteristics such as race and gender. The resulting “group membership” then reinforces the similarities and differences between individuals which leads to the creation of distinctions based on “in-group” and “out-group” characteristics. Such judgments often result in negative consequences for minority members or out-group members in the workplace. This may take the form of lack of mentorship provided to such individuals, poor performance evaluation, careers that are stalled and lack of involvement at work (Shore, Chung-Herrera, Dean, Ehrhart, & Jung, 2009). On the other hand, however, is the view that stems from the “value in diversity” perspective that states that diversity pertaining to race and ethnicity often results in better understanding of different cultures along with more information, enhanced ability to solve problems, higher creativity and decision-making ability along with constructive conflict that helps such work teams to improve their outcomes (Shore, Chung-Herrera, Dean, Ehrhart, & Jung, 2009). Proponents of this perspective assert that “diversity pays” and enables the company to better understand the needs of its customers and enhance the quality of products and services offered by the organization. It is by virtue of this goal that organisations prefer having a diverse workforce that enhances income and profits. Nevertheless, researchers has suggested otherwise by arguing that diversity in race and ethnicity leads to negative outcomes. These skeptics argue that process loss results from diversity because incorporating diversity imposes substantial costs on the firm. Having a different gender or color from the majority is essentially a source of conflict that is emotional in nature (Herring, 2009). This ultimately tends to reduce cohesiveness and harmony in the team which ultimately increases absenteeism and turnover. Furthermore, it is believed that quality of products that the organization offers declines because of jobs being taken up by workers who are unqualified and are granted the position only by virtue of accommodating the minority group (Herring, 2009). A similar approach is observed as far as gender diversity is concerned where possessing a gender different from that possessed by the majority is concerned conducive to discrimination and prejudice such as low wages and glass ceiling in the case of females. This has substance since the gender and racial gap in organisations is widening to the extent that the wage differential between males and females, African Americans and Whites, Whites and Hispanics is increasing. It is primarily discovered that a diverse workforce is mostly plagued with communication problems, high levels of conflict and reduced performance, although it can also contribute to greater contacts, information and innovation. It can be argued, therefore, that diversity is associated with dual outcomes (positive and negative). The need for incorporating diversity has arisen because of stereotyping and prejudice based on gender, race and various other traits. The traditional gender roles ascribed to men and women has led male and female applicants with similar traits to be allocated different jobs suited to their gender. The “sex role spillover” has been defined as the situation when specific traits pertaining to male-oriented occupations influence the working atmosphere for females at work. Particularly, women who work under such settings get more attention and less support and are evaluated more strictly, often in comparison with their male counterparts which make them appear less desirable to the employer. The stereotyping and resulting out-group bias in case of racial discrimination are synonymous to gender bias as both cases inhibit the advancement of out-group members. We are, therefore, led to the belief that although organisations claim to boost of the positive effects of a diverse workforce; the reality is just the opposite. The organization’s policy, structure and internal culture in large part determine the privileges granted to in-group members with respect to racial and gender groups. It is owing to this fact that organisations can either watch and do nothing or proactively execute a comprehensive diversity strategy to ensure equal opportunity and access of privileges to deprived minorities. Three paradigms have been suggested namely that pertaining to “discrimination and fairness”, “access and legitimacy” and “learning and effectiveness” (Podsiadlowski, Groschke, Kogler, Springer, & Zee, 2013). These are based on the varying responses organisations may have with respect to diversity including the decision to include or exclude the outcast groups, put up with, adapt, ignore and establish relationships. It is important to note that the recognition of diversity may be mistaken as a discriminatory practice in itself and that for the same reason organisations prefer to treat workers as homogenous rather than identifying the out-group and giving it privileged treatment. Under this banner, efforts to expel diversity may be overt or covert such as erecting employment barriers for immigrants. This is particularly true in the case of Hispanics who earn almost half of what the Whites do in the U.S. The reason most firms may give for this disparity is that Hispanics are, on average, less educated as compared to non-Hispanics. This is perpetuating cycle which has rolled over from one generation to the other. It has been observed that the young generation of Hispanics has fewer chances of inheriting wealth from their forefathers than do White Americans (Lowrey, 2013). Owing to scanty resources, the wealth accumulation process steadily declines for the Hispanics. The lack of education due to fewer family resources leads to poor employment opportunities which then translate into low income, little wealth and so on. Hence, this self-perpetuating cycle continues leaving the Hispanic generation worse off. Unfortunately, organisations have done little beyond denying opportunities to Hispanics on the basis of poor educational background which proves to be a major hurdle in securing good employment for such individuals. This is a defensive strategy of diversity management whereby firms do virtually nothing to acknowledge diversity). On the other end of the continuum, however, are firms that adopt both reactive and proactive measures. The former approach mainly includes addressing inter-cultural conflict, whereas, the latter involves appreciating and encouraging diversity by viewing it as a positive force (Podsiadlowski, Groschke, Kogler, Springer, & Zee, 2013). The term diversity management incorporates these two approaches towards diversity and pertains primarily to the organizational policies and practices that result in people management such that the positive potential of diversity is maximized. As mentioned earlier, the policies, internal culture and rules of the organization, in large part, determine the extent to which diversity is managed. The human resource or personnel department in most organisations has a critical role to play in this regard. Since these individuals are engaged in arbitrary and subjective decision making process they are highly susceptible to bias from stereotypes with gender and race being the most prominent ones. However, ever since the human resource function became the responsibility of functional managers, these managers have attained significant discretionary power that enables them to bypass written rules and procedures. In such situations, a high degree of separation is seen amongst in-group and out-group members which indicates the influence that “ascriptive” qualities have on manager’s personal decisions (Bielby, 2000). It is highly unlikely that in all such cases (where women or people of color are denied opportunity) members of the out-group lack desirable traits for the job. Far from this, employers are known to segregate jobs on the basis of gender specific behavior and traits. For instance, women are almost always preferred as receptionists and desired for positions such as sales and marketing due to their sex appeal. Although recruitment that takes place through personal ties often negates the progress of neglected groups, even bureaucratic organisations demonstrate high levels of discrimination. For instance, workers that are white males often favor strict systems of seniority in industries that have a history of denying equal opportunity to women and people of color (Bielby, 2000). In much the same way, setting job requirements such as particular kinds of prior work experience may exclude women and people of color who possess relevant skills by virtue of their experience in other areas (Bielby, 2000). Therefore, the process of incorporating diversity in the organization is a complex one and may often be counterproductive in nature. As suggested earlier, there is a chance of hiring individuals who are poorly qualified for the job merely because they belong to a gender or color different from that of the majority. Similarly, there exists a gap between theory and practice since most firms prefer having a diverse workforce but often lack the structure, policies and culture that is conducive to the same. For instance, the European Union boosts of valuing diversity and having organisations that label themselves as being oriented towards diversity (Podsiadlowski, Groschke, Kogler, Springer, & Zee, 2013). However, nations such as Austria have diversity management programs that are limited in their scope as they only focus on age and gender (Podsiadlowski, Groschke, Kogler, Springer, & Zee, 2013). Therefore, Austria displays a case where diversity management is still in its development stages. This brings us to the conclusion that although it is easier to commit to diversity by word, incorporating it in practice is far more difficult. This is also due to the fact that the effects of diversity cannot be quantitatively represented which makes it even more difficult for organisations to present a business case for diversity. Although this paper largely focuses on diversity pertaining to race and gender, the other dimensions of diversity are equally important. Age is of particular importance to developed nations where an ‘ageing’ population has put pressure on governments to generate jobs for people of higher age brackets. This, however, may not be in the best interests of organisations who prefer having an agile, young workforce rather than a large number of senior employees for productivity and profit reasons. Similarly, culture and national origin are becoming increasingly important today due to cross-cultural projects where individuals from across the globe get together to work resulting in different languages, verbal and non-verbal communication as well as mindset. Therefore, these areas need to be explored in-depth. To conclude, this paper demonstrates the mounting importance of valuing diversity as well as the reasons for ‘not’ doing so. The changing dynamics of the workplace, such as functional managers having significant discretionary power, project management as well as the internal culture of the organization in large part shape the way in which organisations view diversity. Some adopt a “do-nothing” or defensive approach by ignoring diversity altogether. Such is the case with Hispanics for instance, who are systematically losing their wealth to White Americans owing to a vicious circle. Organisations, therefore, face trade-offs such as when they must accommodate particular gender or people of color even though they may be less qualified for the job. Ultimately, the feasibility and practicality of diversity management initiatives remains challenged which provides scope for further research. References Bielby, W. T. (2000). Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemporary Sociology, 120-129. Herring, C. (2009). Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity. American Sociological Review, 208-224. Lowrey, A. (2013, April 28). Wealth Gap Among Races Has Widened Since Recession. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/racial-wealth-gap-widened-during-recession.html?ref=hispanicamericans&_r=0 Podsiadlowski, A., Groschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C., & Zee, K. v. (2013). Managing a culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 159-175. Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Jung, D. I. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? . Human Resource Management Review, 117–133. Read More